All of the passages in Muwatta I looked at were about Muhammad saying something. They consisted of his words, not actions. I think I am really misunderstanding something here, are you saying that the hadiths are a record of Muhammad's words and the Sunnah a record of his actions? Can you provide me some examples then of the Sunnah?

Does the Quran say anything about the hadiths? If someone rejects the hadiths completely, can they still be saved as a Muslim or are they then non-Muslims? Thanks.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Examples of the Sunnah would be the Five Pillars, keeping of beard, covering of women etc.An average muslim would not really have time to read all hadith, so law would usually be taught to him and he would usually have time to read the Quran and practice the five pillars.

And where are the 5 pillars mentioned?...

Originally posted by TG12345

What if I told you I got it from God?

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Did Muhammad(SAW) claim he got it from G-d?

Are you saying that his teachings are not from God? I would actually agree with you if you did, but somehow doubt that to be the case.

Originally posted by TG12345

No problems. Which leads us back to the passage we are looking for. What did Muhammad mean when he said that a Muslim eats with one intestine and a non-Muslim with seven?

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

If I'm not mistaken was Muhammad(SAW) not referring to that very incident where the non-muslim ate more than them? I don't remember the hadith you posted.

Yahya
related to me from Malik from Abu'z-Zinad from al-Araj that Abu Hurayra
said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,
said, 'The muslim eats in one intestine, and the kafir eats in seven!' "

Yahya
related to me from Malik from Suhayl ibn Abi Salih from his father from
Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant
him peace, gave hospitality to a kafir guest. The Messenger of Allah,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered a sheep to be brought
for him and it was milked. He drank its milk. Then another came, and he
drank it. Then another came and he drank it until he had drunk the milk
of seven sheep. In the morning he became muslim, and the Messenger of
Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered a sheep for him.
It was milked and he drank its milk. Then he ordered another for him
and he could not finish it. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him
and grant him peace, said, "The mumin drinks in one intestine, and the
kafir drinks in seven intestines."

Jesus being the Son of God does not conflict with Him being God and that
does not conflict with Him being man. As the New Testament points out,
Jesus was both God and man... the Word of God made flesh.

If you
believe that parts of the Bible are parts of God's word and his prophets
are others are not, then obviously you must believe it is corrupted.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

So you believe God supposedly gave birth to himself through a virgin but he came out human? That doesn't make sense.

Why not? He chose to make Himself incarnate in the world, and this is how He chose to do it.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Wouldn't corrupted imply that they were aware they were "corrupting" it.

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter andadd although none among Allah’s creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS
BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The
Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED.
However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books
that they wrote themselves."

Nothing was removed but additions(such as the crucifixion account added to the written gospels) were made and meanings were changed.

If nothing was removed, then where is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible, Old Testament or New Testament?

Originally posted by TG12345

I have a NIV Bible at home, as well as an NIV. When I used to be a Catholic Christian, I would read the NRSV. The differences are so minor in most cases one can barely notice them. Theologically, they make no real difference.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

You have a NIV Bible as well as an NIV? What?

Oops I meant NIV and ESV.

Originally posted by TG12345

I am reading through the links you posted in your last reply, I have to admit I haven't seen the one you are referring to yet.

Where do you think Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah or Prophets?

Where do you think he is mentioned in the Gospels or New Testament? I am glad you realize He is not the Comforter.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

The hadith implies Prophets as in Isaiah 42(?):

Narrated Ata bin Yasar:

I met Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As and asked him, "Tell me about the
description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned in Torah (i.e. Old
Testament). He replied, 'Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with
some of the qualities attributed to him in the Quran such as: "O Prophet
! We have sent you as a witness and a giver of glad tidings, and a
warner (Qur'an 48:8) and guardian of the Ummiyyeen. You are My Servant
and My by CouponDropDown">messenger
(i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who depends upon
Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh nor a noise-maker in the
markets And you do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal
with them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will not let him (the
Prophet) die till he makes straight the crooked people by making them
say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah," with which will be
opened blind eyes and deaf ears and enveloped hearts."[Bukhari Kitaab al-Buyu' (Book of Sales and Trade) Chapter 50 (The dislike of raising voices in the market)]

Read my links for more info on this.

Please show me which part of Isaiah 42 you believe prophesies of Muhammad.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

The only accounts in the New Testament for Jesus' life are the Gospels are they not?So the Prophecy of Muhammad would be in the Gospel.

If that is the case, where is he prophesied in the Gospels?

Originally posted by TG12345

I asked because previously you wrote that there is a Shia Quran. So you do not believe this to be the case?

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

I do not know much about Shia Islam.

Then why did you say there is a Shia Quran?

Originally posted by TG12345

Yet if the Gospel = New Testament, it clearly states that Jesus was
crucified. Can you please show me the hadith you are referring to? I
guess I haven't gotten to it yet.If you believe that the Bible is not corrupted, then the Quran and the
Bible conflict since the Bible does state clearly that Jesus was
crucified. Interestingly, the authors of "unchanging word" also believe
He was crucified, though not that He is God.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

There are different books in the New Testament, not just the Gospels.

Yes, that is true. Do you believe all the New Testament is the Injil and from God as the authors of "unchanging word" do, or just the Gospels?

Ibn Abbas
said, "Just before Allah raised Jesus to the Heavens, Jesus went to his
disciples, who were twelve inside the house. When he arrived, his hair
was dripping with water (as if he had just had a bath) and he said,
'There are those among you who will disbelieve in me twelve times after
you had believed in me.' He then asked, 'Who among you will volunteer
for his appearance to be transformed into mine, and be killed in my
place. Whoever volunteers for that, he will be with me (in Paradise).'
One of the youngest ones among them volunteered, but Jesus asked him to
sit down. Jesus asked again for a volunteer, and the same young man
volunteered and Jesus asked him to sit down again. Then the young man
volunteered a third time and Jesus said, 'You will be that man,' and the
resemblance of Jesus was cast over that man while Jesus ascended to
Heaven from a hole in the roof of the house. When the Jews came looking
for Jesus, they found that young man and crucified him. Some of Jesus'
followers disbelieved in him twelve times after they had believed in
him. They then divided into three groups. One group, the Jacobites, said, 'Allah remained with us as long as He willed and then ascended to Heaven.' Another group, the Nestorians,
said, 'The son of Allah was with us as long as he willed and Allah took
him to Heaven.' Another group, the Muslims, said, 'The servant and
Messenger of Allah remained with us as long as Allah willed, and Allah
then took him to Him.' The two disbelieving groups cooperated against
the Muslim group and they killed them. Ever since that happened, Islam
was then veiled until Allah sent Muhammad."

I don't know how authentic this

I do not know how authentic this is either, but for the sake of Ibn Abbas' credibility I hope he didn't actually state this. Even if we disregard the claim that Jesus was not crucified and that someone offered to take his place (which I do not believe of course), the claim that there were the mentioned three groups of disciples and that two of the groups killed the third group is not only offensive to the disciples but false... and I will show you why.

The Nestorians were a Christian sect that came in existence in the 5th century, started by a bishop called Nestorius.http://www.everyculture.com/Africa-Middle-East/Nestorians-History-and-Cultural-Relations.html

The Jacobites came into existence in the 4th century.http://www.everyculture.com/Africa-Middle-East/Jacobites-History-and-Cultural-Relations.html

As you and I know, Jesus lived on earth in the first century.

Can you please provide the source from where you got the commentary? Thanks.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Crucifixion followed by a resurrection in the Quran is still possible as it says ".....for of a surety they killed him not:-"—Qur'an, sura 4 157 Could mean they did not kill him for good or definite as Jews and other non believers think they did.

Of course Jesus was not killed "for good". He rose from the dead!

Praise God!

The verse you cited says though very clearly that Muslims believe Jesus was not only not killed, but also not crucified.

4:157

And because of their saying: We
slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him
not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who
disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge
thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

But in Islam whether he was killed or not is not that important but that he is alive in Heaven and there will be a Second Coming.

The fact however is that He was both crucified and died on the cross... and then He came back to life. He is alive in Heaven and there will be a second coming. On that we agree.

Originally posted by TG12345

These passages do not contradict the crucifixion. The angels would have protected Jesus from falling if He jumped, it doesn't say He would be protected from the crucifixion.

Jesus could have called on angels to have protected Him from crucifixion.

Matthew 26:53

53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Instead, He chose to suffer. He could have escaped from all this, but chose not to.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

That contradicts Matthew 27:46:

46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,c]">[c] lemasabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Where is the contradiction? Jesus knew it was the will of the Father that He die.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Also, you believe Jesus to be God yet he's calling out to his God!?

On earth, He made Himself voluntarily inferior to the Father, as the passages I cited previously in other threads already show.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

And in the verses where Satan tells Jesus (who you believe to be God) to worship but Jesus(who you believe to be God) says he serves and worships the Lord his God only!?

Satan called on Jesus to worship him. Jesus was both man and God, and as man worshiped the Father.

Originally posted by TG12345

Please show me some of the science claims, let's look at them together.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Why? You do not think so? [/QUOTE]

Feel free to show them and let's examine them together. I believe there are some scientific truths in the Quran, as there are some in the Bible. There are also scientific truths in other religious texts of belief systems we both acknowledge to be false.

Originally posted by TG12345

Notice that this was Jesus talking about Himself. When He returns, He will judge the world and send many people to hell.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Did Jesus himself say will judge to send people to either Heaven or Hell? [/QUOTE]

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Doesn't that contradict his teaching to condemn not?

It doesn't because unlike us, Jesus is God. God has the right to condemn and judge others. We do not.

Originally posted by TG12345

This was a parable describing what will happen to those who reject God. It was not Jesus giving His disciples permission to fight their enemies.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Is this an actual interpretation or just your opinion?

I believe that the fact that the disciples never attacked those who were persecuting them in the early church, that Jesus rebuked Peter for cutting off the ear of one of the men who arrested Christ, that Jesus taught love for enemies and turning the other cheek as a response to violence, that on the cross He Himself prayed for His enemies... means that it is what He meant.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

The Pope and Crusaders in the middle ages thought otherwise. But then again Suicide Bombers go against the teachings of Muhammad(PBUH) and Quran.

Exactly. Jesus never allowed the use of violence, and taught us to respond to it with love.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Oh and Messengers all taught that G-d alone should be worshiped but had different laws but always had the Seven Laws of Noah at least in their laws.

But would one messenger's instructions to his followers contradict the instructions of another?

Originally posted by TG12345

LOL maybe it would be best to keep it on the forum. I am engaged in a very long discussion with another Muslim friend via email (we debate, and our debates have ran into hundreds of pages on MS Word) and am not sure if I can keep up with more than one like that.

I am looking through your links, though slowly as I am also involved in other things.

What is Ilm al Kalam?

Allah Akhbar!

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Ilm al Kalam is the "science of speech" interpreted as Attempting to gain unknowable knowledge especially through debate, it is Haram. For example, early muslims debated whether the Quran is created or uncreated since it is G-d's word. And whether Allah speaks or has speech?

Thanks for explaining.

[QUOTE=786SalamKhan] Only Allah knows best.

Indeed.

[QUOTE=786SalamKhan] Allahu Akbar!

Blessed be His Name!

Sorry for the length of time in response my friend. Looking forward to reading your answer and will respond to it when I can.

Why are you complicating things when you and I both know that the 5 pillars are obligatory upon every muslim.

Originally posted by TG12345

Are you saying that his teachings are not from God? I would actually agree with you if you did, but somehow doubt that to be the case.

Now you are trying to twist my words.
You think every one of his words were Allah's? Even before his Prophethood was revealed to him? Didn't think so....

Originally posted by TG12345

Why not? He chose to make Himself incarnate in the world, and this is how He chose to do it.

You believe that God reveals himself more over time as explanation for the trinity doctrine yet the Hindus worship the Trimurti and believe Krishna as avatar much before this. Understandable since the doctrine of Trinity was thought up by former pagan Romans.

Originally posted by TG12345

Then why did you say there is a Shia Quran?

This shows that you do not fully read my posts, in one of my replies I said that some sunnis believe that Shias have a different Quran but that is unlikely.

Originally posted by TG12345

I do not know how authentic this is either, but for the sake of Ibn Abbas' credibility I hope he didn't actually state this. Even if we disregard the claim that Jesus was not crucified and that someone offered to take his place (which I do not believe of course), the claim that there were the mentioned three groups of disciples and that two of the groups killed the third group is not only offensive to the disciples but false... and I will show you why.

I already knew who the Nestorians and Jacobites were before I posted the hadith. Remember in one of my very first replies I said to read beyond the text:
1. The hadith is not talking about Jesus' disciples but his "followers" if I said that I follow Muhammad(SAW) it does not make me a Sahaba.
2. In the hadith, Jacobites is obviously a reference to Trinitarians, Nestorians is obviously a reference to those who believe the Sonship of Jesus and Muslims is obviously a reference to Unitarians.
3. The reason the hadith mentions the groups is that both Syriac sects may have at one point persecuted Unitarians as heretics. Only Allah knows.

Again you do not read all of my posts. I already provided links for your sources.

Originally posted by TG12345

On earth, He made Himself voluntarily inferior to the Father, as the passages I cited previously in other threads already show.

You admit that they are separate and not equal yet you worship them. Indeed Trinitarians are polytheists cloaked as Monotheists or "Wolves in Sheep's clothing".

Originally posted by TG12345

Feel free to show them and let's examine them together. I believe there are some scientific truths in the Quran, as there are some in the Bible. There are also scientific truths in other religious texts of belief systems we both acknowledge to be false.

I agree but like I said before the Quran contains much more.

Why do you respond if you do not fully read the content of my post such as the links?
I'm not gonna reply anymore as I've pretty much already input my answers and we are just repeating ourselves. I don't have time for this.

Much before I said what's the point? This is true.
And here I thought that the Jews were stiff necked. Christians like Sam Shamoun, David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi are the most stiff necked people I've ever seen. But unlike you they are dishonest.

Why are you complicating things when you and I both know that the 5 pillars are obligatory upon every muslim.

Can you please show me where they are mentioned? Is there a verse in the Quran that states there are 5 pillars of Islam and describes them?

Shukran.

Originally posted by TG12345

Are you saying that his teachings are not from God? I would actually agree with you if you did, but somehow doubt that to be the case.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Now you are trying to twist my words.

Please read what I said:

Are you saying that his teachings are not from God? I would actually
agree with you if you did, but somehow doubt that to be the case.

How is that twisting your words?

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

You think every one of his words were Allah's? Even before his Prophethood was revealed to him? Didn't think so....

Do you believe the hadiths contain things that Muhammad said before he was a prophet?

Do you believe the hadiths we have examined thus far were his words before he knew he was a prophet?

I am not trying to twist your words but I have a hard time believing that Muslims think the hadiths are Muhammad's sayings before he even met God.

Originally posted by TG12345

Why not? He chose to make Himself incarnate in the world, and this is how He chose to do it.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

You believe that God reveals himself more over time as explanation for the trinity doctrine yet the Hindus worship the Trimurti and believe Krishna as avatar much before this.

You either misunderstand the Christian belief about God, or the Hindu belief about their gods.

trimurti,(
Sanskrit: “three forms”) in Hinduism, triad of the three great godsBrahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Scholars consider the doctrine of the trimurti
to be an attempt to reconcile different approaches to the divine with
each other and with the philosophical doctrine of ultimate reality (brahma). The doctrine was given classical expression in Kalidasa’s poem Kumarasambhava (“Birth of the War God”; c. 4th–5th century ce). In trimurti
symbolism, the three gods are collapsed into a single form with three
faces. Each god is in charge of one aspect of creation, with Brahma as
creator, Vishnu as preserver, and Shiva as destroyer.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605418/trimurti

Trinity,in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead.

Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus
and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Hebrew
Scriptures: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy
6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the
implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence
and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament
passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction:
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the
fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14).
Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the
Trinity.

The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries
and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of
monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of
the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions
seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be
interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution
was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the
self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of
God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the
three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity
(subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at
the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until
the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were
brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three
persons.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios]
as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit.
Over the next half century, Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene
formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of
Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the
Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the
form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the
historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the
Enlightenment decreased its importance.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/605512/Trinity

The Trimurti doctrine teaches there are three gods who exist in one form. The Trinity doctrine teaches that one God exists as three persons.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Understandable since the doctrine of Trinity was thought up by former pagan Romans.

The idea was in the Bible all along.

Originally posted by TG12345

Then why did you say there is a Shia Quran?

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

This shows that you do not fully read my posts, in one of my replies I said that some sunnis believe that Shias have a different Quran but that is unlikely.

How does this indicate I did not read your posts? I asked you why you said there is a Shia Quran... which is something you did say, before afterwards claiming this is not the case and admitting you do not know much about Shia Islam... neither do I btw.

I am curious why, if you state that you do not know much about Shia Islam and believe it is untrue that Shias have their own Quran, you previously stated there is a Shia Quran like there is a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Greek, etc. Bible.

If it was a mistake it's OK. Like every other human being, we have made our share of mistakes. I was curious, that's all.

I don't see how me asking you why you stated that there is a Shia Quran indicates I haven't read your posts. I am pasting our discussion on this for your convenience.

786SalaamKhan: Ah, I no longer believe the Bible is corrupted. I apologize, you were
right when you posted hadith about Waraqa proving the existence of the
Injil; I was just too stiff-necked. It was Salafi scholars like Ahmad
Deedat and Zakir Naik that borrowed the ideas from the Qadianis.
http://unchangingword.com/While I do not 100% agree with the above
website, I agree with most and I'm sure you will as well so please your
time and read through it. However I believe that anything in the Bible
that differs from the Quran is because of
the long passage of time where it was mistransmitted, mistranslated,
misinterpreted but maybe a few deliberate/accidental changes. That is
why there are many versions and I do not mean translations like King
James but I mean Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Greek etc. Similar
to how there is a ShiaQuran.http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24591&KW=786salaamkhan+shia+quran&PN=6

TG12345: Hold on... now I am confused. Are you saying that the Shias use a different Quran than Sunni Muslims do? Can
you show me any evidence for such a claim? I have to admit I am blown
away by this allegation. I am curious to see any proof of such a
statement. Thanks.786SalaamKhan: Some Sunnis suggest that they use a different Quranbut this is unlikely so they use the same Quran but have a different opinion. The truth is that Shias deny that Uthman compiled the Quran and believe that the Quran was actually compiled by Muhammad(SAW) during his lifetime. Some suggest that the Shias believe that Muhammad(SAW) gave the True Quran to Ali and it is actually three times longer and that a future Imam(Mahdi?) will return this Quran but this view is apparently a misconception to discredit them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_view_of_the_Quran

TG12345: I asked because previously you wrote that there is a ShiaQuran. So you do not believe this to be the case?http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24591&KW=786salaamkhan+shia+quran&PN=6

786SalaamKhan: I do not know much about Shia Islam.http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24591&KW=786salaamkhan+shia+quran&PN=6

TG12345: Then why did you say there is a ShiaQuran?http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24591&KW=786salaamkhan+shia+quran&PN=8

Originally posted by TG12345

I do not know how authentic this is either, but for the sake of Ibn Abbas' credibility I hope he didn't actually state this. Even if we disregard the claim that Jesus was not crucified and that someone offered to take his place (which I do not believe of course), the claim that there were the mentioned three groups of disciples and that two of the groups killed the third group is not only offensive to the disciples but false... and I will show you why.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

I already knew who the Nestorians and Jacobites were before I posted the hadith. Remember in one of my very first replies I said to read beyond the text:
1. The hadith is not talking about Jesus' disciples but his "followers" if I said that I follow Muhammad(SAW) it does not make me a Sahaba.

Are we discussing a hadith or are we discussing tafsir? You didn't post a link to the source, can you please do that? I asked you this before, I am asking again.

I apologize for misunderstanding your interpretation of the verse, to me it sounded like it stated Jesus' disciples were the ones who divided into three groups and two of the groups killed the last group.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

2. In the hadith, Jacobites is obviously a reference to Trinitarians, Nestorians is obviously a reference to those who believe the Sonship of Jesus and Muslims is obviously a reference to Unitarians.

The Nestorians believe God is a Trinity, like the Jacobites (and most Christians) did and do.

The Church of
the East faithful to the command of our Lord, and the teaching and
practice of the early church, has maintained this Apostolic Succession
throughout the trials and tribulations of its nearly twenty
centuries-long history.

Its
theology is Apostolic and Catholic, and has remained unchanged
throughout its history. Its doctrine of the Holy Trinity is in
conformity with that of the Council of Nicea, at which it was
represented.

http://www.nestorian.org/history_of_the_nestorian_churc.html

The Syrian Orthodox church accepts only three Ecumenical Synodsnamely Nicea (A.D.325), Constantinople (A.D. 381) and Ephesus (A. D.
431) as the universal Synods. The Church meticulously observe all faith
declaration of the Nicean Creed. The western church at a later stage
appended a statement to this creed attributing the Holy Ghost to be
originating from Son also, (Filioque) which we do not accept. The Church
was totally merged with the divine element and became one
(Monophysite).

At the Council of Nicea, the idea of the Trinity was defined officially. The Trinity being "the deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit under one Godhead in three co-equal and co-eternal persons"

As you can see, this definition includes both the Sonship of Jesus and the Trinity... and the Jacobites and Nestorians both accepted these things.

Question: "What occurred at the Council of Nicea?"

Answer:
The Council of Nicea took place in 325 A.D. by the order of the Roman
Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor,
east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine
presided over a group of Church bishops and leaders with the purpose of
defining the true God for all of Christianity and eliminating all the
confusion, controversy, and contention within Christ’s church. The
Council of Nicea affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an
official definition of the Trinity—the deity of The Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit under one Godhead, in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons

...

(article is continued)http://www.gotquestions.org/council-of-Nicea.html

Both groups believed Jesus is God and both believed He is the Son of God. As a Christian I believe Jesus is both God and the Son of God.

The author of the tafsir (or hadith, if this is what you claim it is but I'd like to see evidence for that if that is the case) clearly misunderstood the beliefs of the Nestorian and Jacobite Christian groups.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

3. The reason the hadith mentions the groups is that both Syriac sects may have at one point persecuted Unitarians as heretics. Only Allah knows.

If you can find evidence for this viewpoint, please show it to me.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Again you do not read all of my posts. I already provided links for your sources.

I really apologize, but I do not see what you are talking about here.Do you mean the list of links you presented for me to read? I am still going through them. I am involved in several debates simultaneously with different people, as well as with life outside of the forums.

It would save us both a lot of time if you could please provide the relevant link. I will look at it as soon as you do so.

Originally posted by TG12345

On earth, He made Himself voluntarily inferior to the Father, as the passages I cited previously in other threads already show.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

You admit that they are separate and not equal yet you worship them.

Where did I say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not equal? The Bible states Jesus made Himself voluntarily inferior to the Father. He is equal to the Father but chose to make Himself unequal for a while.

I worship God, who exists as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Just like you worship one God who you believe has 99+ different attributes. When you call on AlRahman and AlRaheem you are calling on one God, not two different Gods.

When I call on the Father, Son and Holy Spirit I do not call on three different Gods but on one God who exists as three persons.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Indeed Trinitarians are polytheists cloaked as Monotheists or "Wolves in Sheep's clothing".

Indeed many Muslims grossly misunderstand what others believe, and then attack them for believing something they don't.

Originally posted by TG12345

Feel free to show them and let's examine them together. I believe there are some scientific truths in the Quran, as there are some in the Bible. There are also scientific truths in other religious texts of belief systems we both acknowledge to be false.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

I agree but like I said before the Quran contains much more.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Why do you respond if you do not fully read the content of my post such as the links?
I'm not gonna reply anymore as I've pretty much already input my answers and we are just repeating ourselves. I don't have time for this.

Whether you respond or not is your choice. I have read your links. I agree with some of what they have to say, and disagree with a lot of what is in them. Forgive me, but I do not have the time or energy to refute every single one of them, if that is what you are asking me to do.

Addressing other issues:http://www.anusha.com/isaac.htmhttp://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?53815-Does-the-Quran-say-that-Ishmael-was-sacrificed-instead-of-Issac/#10http://www.anusha.com/jesuspaul.htmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k94n1GfBbcw&list=LLCTZqIQFXzgBrH8RHH5q1tAhttp://arabicpaper.tripod.com/prophecy.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA2N2Iz5ExMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtEpM9BqvQIhttp://www.mushafiqsultan.com/isaiah-42-describes-prophet-muhammad-al-mustafaa/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death#Substitution_interpretation

Regarding the source for the passage quoting Ibn Abbas on Jesus' followers dividing into three groups and persecuting one of the groups, I see you got that from a wikipedia source that says it is from Ibn Kathir without giving sources to back that up. I try to back up what I say with sources that are not wikipedia since as you probably know the stuff on there is often not reliable.

Regarding Muhammad being prophesied in the Injil, I see you believe this is in Isaiah 42, and provide a source

I will briefly present some of the evidence that does not make it possible that Muhammad is referred to in that passage.Isaiah 42:1-4

Behold my servant, whom I uphold,my chosen, in whom my soul delights;I have put my Spirit upon him;he will bring forth justice to the nations.2 He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice,or make it heard in the street;3 a bruised reed he will not break,and a faintly burning wick he will not quench;he will faithfully bring forth justice.4 He will not grow faint or be discourageda]">[a]till he has established justice in the earth;and the coastlands wait for his law.

Has Muhammad established justice in the earth? He established his interpretation of God's law in Arabia, but not beyond its borders.

Will he come again to judge the earth?

Jesus will.

Even the source you cited acknowledges that Muhammad established justice in Arabia.

He will not fail nor be discouraged,till He has established justice in the earth;And the coastlands shall wait for His law.”

Fulfillment

The hadith confrims this with the words ولن يقبضه الله حتى يقيم به الملة العوجاء بأن يقولوا لا إله إلا الله ويفتح
"Allah will not let him (the Prophet) die till he makes straight the
crooked people by making them say: "None has the right to be worshipped
but Allah," The Prophet was given a detailed Law (Shariah) by Allah,
which is based on supreme justice, a Law similar to the Law of Moses in
its comprehensiveness. Prior to the advent of Prophet Muhammad (sws),
total anarchy had gripped Arabia, lewdness was rampant; slavery, usury,
bloodshed, and tribal feuds was the order of the day. When the Noble
Prophet commenced his mission of reforming his society based on the
message of monotheism, he faced stiff opposition from the Pagans. When
all the lucrative offers made to him to abandon his preaching did not
work, the pagans of Makka resorted to torture and severe persecution. In
the face of this stiff opposition an ordinary man might be discouraged,
but the Noble Prophet (sws) struggled on. His mesage of equality of all
humans was attractive for the slaves and the downtrodden. Many such as
Bilal, Khabbab ibn al-Aratt, Yasir and Sumayya embraced
Islam. These new converts suffered the most. But I only want to point
out the grand prophecy which Prophet Muhammad (sws) made in these testing times. Following is the account given in Bukhari,

I came to the Prophet while he was leaning against his sheet cloak in
the shade of the Ka'ba. We were suffering greatly from the pagans in
those days. I said (to him). "Will you invoke Allah (to help us)?" He
sat down with a red face and said, "(A believer among) those who were
before you used to be combed with iron combs so that nothing of his
flesh or nerves would remain on his bones; yet that would never make him
desert his religion. A saw might be put over the parting of his head
which would be split into two parts, yet all that would never make him
abandon his religion. Allah will surely complete this religion (i.e.
Islam) so that a traveler from Sana'a to Hadramawt will not be afraid of
anybody except Allah." [Bukhari, Kitab Manaqib al-Ansar (Merits of the Helpers in Madinah) 63, Chapter 29, Hadith 191]

Notice the underlined words. The Prophet is predicting this at a time
when there were hardly 150 Muslims in the whole of Arabia. Khabbab (ra)
saw these words fulfilled in his lifetime. Is this not the fulfillment of the words "He will not fail nor be discouraged,till He has established justice in the earth"?

Muhammad did not bring justice (or his version of it) to the world, he brought it to Arabia.

Jesus on the other hand, will return and judge the world. Obviously Isaiah 42 is about Him. The source you does not answer the question where is Muhammad mentioned in the Injil, since, as the author realizes, Isaiah 42 is in the Torah.

The prophecy I am referring to is mentioned in the Old Testament
book of Isaiah and its 42nd chapter. Let me first share with you the
narratives from Muslims traditions of how early Muslims saw the mention
of Prophet Muhammad (sws) in the Torah.

I met Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'As and asked him, "Tell me about the
description of Allah's Apostle which is mentioned in Torah (i.e. Old
Testament). He replied, 'Yes. By Allah, he is described in Torah with
some of the qualities attributed to him in the Quran such as: "O Prophet
! We have sent you as a witness and a giver of glad tidings, and a
warner (Qur'an 48:8) and guardian of the Ummiyyeen. You are My Servant
and My messenger (i.e. Apostle). I have named you "Al-Mutawakkil" (who
depends upon Allah). You are neither discourteous, harsh nor a
noise-maker in the markets And you do not do evil to those who do evil
to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness. Allah will
not let him (the Prophet) die till he makes straight the crooked people
by making them say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,"
with which will be opened blind eyes and deaf ears and enveloped
hearts."[Bukhari Kitaab al-Buyu' (Book of Sales and Trade) Chapter 50 (The dislike of raising voices in the market)]

A similar hadith is mention at another place in Bukhari as follows,

Narrated Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As:

This Verse: 'Verily We have sent you (O Muhammad) as a witness, as a bringer of glad tidings and as a warner.' (48.8)

Which is in the Qur'an, appears in the Torah thus: 'Verily We have
sent you (O Muhammad) as a witness, as a bringer of glad tidings and as a
warner, and as a protector for the Ummiyyeen (i.e., the Arabs.) You are
My Servant and My Apostle, and I have named you Al-Mutawakkil (one who
depends upon Allah). You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce
character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for
evil, but excuse and forgive. Allah will not take you unto Him till He
guides through you a crocked (curved) nation on the right path by
causing them to say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."
With such a statement He will cause to open blind eyes, deaf ears and
hardened hearts.'[Bukhari Kitaab at-Tafseer' (Commentary of the Qur'an) Surah
48 (Fath), Chapter 3 (Verily We have sent you as a witness, as a
bringer of glad tidings and as a warner)]

So as to where Muhammad is described in the Injil, there is still no answer to that.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Much before I said what's the point? This is true.

No one is forcing you to be part of this discussion. I will respond to every point that you make and I will read the links... but I will not refute each and every single one of them... unless you bring them up yourself (and by bring up I mean actually state your argument and provide reasons for it that I can address instead of telling me to read a dozen different articles). I am not trying to be rude or offensive, but am just honest about how I approach discussion.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

And here I thought that the Jews were stiff necked. Christians like Sam Shamoun, David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi are the most stiff necked people I've ever seen. But unlike you they are dishonest.

I have responded to every one of the points you have made and have read your links even if I have not responded to them all.

I do not know Shamoun, Wood and Qureshi so I cannot comment too much on them. I have read some of Shamoun's articles, he at times does misquote the Quran and hadiths. Whether this is intentional on his part or mistakes I don't know.

You mistakenly said that Timothy was circumcised by having his penis in another man's mouth, you then apologized and admitted you got that from an unBiblical source. Zakir Naik misquoted a verse from the passage of Gospel of John in the video that Rational posted. It's OK, we all make mistakes.

I don't know whether what Sam Shamoun writes when he is mistaken is from a willfull dishonesty or ignorance. Either way, it makes his arguments unreliable. I check out his site sometimes, and am very careful to cross-reference every claim that he makes.

I would recommend every Muslim do the same for Zakir Naik's presentations on what according to him the Bible teaches.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

But unlike you they are dishonest.

Thank you for these kind words, and for not calling me one of the "professional liars" as the gentleman who goes by the name "truthnowcome" has so eloquently stated.

If you want to discuss more, I look forward to reading your response. If you want to end all discussion with me, it is your choice. Either way, I will continue to wish the very best for you and to keep you in my prayers.

Are you saying that his teachings are not from God? I would actually agree with you if you did, but somehow doubt that to be the case.

How is that twisting your words?

I apologise I took it out of context.

Originally posted by TG12345

Do you believe the hadiths contain things that Muhammad said before he was a prophet?

Do you believe the hadiths we have examined thus far were his words before he knew he was a prophet?

I am not trying to twist your words but I have a hard time believing that Muslims think the hadiths are Muhammad's sayings before he even met God.

You misunderstood me, does every word need to be from Allah for the Prophet to even speak? How about when Jesus called the Gentiles as dogs, was it God's word?

Originally posted by TG12345

The Trimurti doctrine teaches there are three gods who exist in one form. The Trinity doctrine teaches that one God exists as three persons.

Many others say Trinity is 3 in 1 also.

Originally posted by TG12345

If it was a mistake it's OK. Like every other human being, we have made our share of mistakes. I was curious, that's all.

Yeah it was a mistake, sorry. I meant to say Shia view not version.

Originally posted by TG12345

Are we discussing a hadith or are we discussing tafsir? You didn't post a link to the source, can you please do that? I asked you this before, I am asking again.

I did, but here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus'_death#Substitution_interpretation

Originally posted by TG12345

Just like you worship one God who you believe has 99+ different attributes. When you call on AlRahman and AlRaheem you are calling on one God, not two different Gods.

You think 99 names for ONE GOD is similar to the concept THREE separate persons?

Originally posted by TG12345

Indeed many Muslims grossly misunderstand what others believe, and then attack them for believing something they don't.

Other Christians and Jews also attack Trinitarians as polytheists and Idol Worshippers, usually directed at Roman Catholics.

Originally posted by TG12345

Muhammad did not bring justice (or his version of it) to the world, he brought it to Arabia.

Jesus did not bring justice to the world, but you believe it to be his second coming. Muhammad also informed other Nations with letters and his Sahaba about the religion of Islam.
Another link I had supporting Muhammad in Isaiah 42 is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtEpM9BqvQI
Also here is a Jewish answer to any prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68iabTXx1wY
Also a Jewish opinion on Islam:
http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Hachrazah_5769_Kislev_15b

Originally posted by TG12345

So as to where Muhammad is described in the Injil, there is still no answer to that.

I said that it would be in the context of speaking to the Jews not his disciples but I would have to know Aramaic, Arabic or Koine Greek to read those Gospels as the English translations could be wrong.

Originally posted by TG12345

I do not know Shamoun, Wood and Qureshi so I cannot comment too much on them. I have read some of Shamoun's articles, he at times does misquote the Quran and hadiths. Whether this is intentional on his part or mistakes I don't know.

You mistakenly said that Timothy was circumcised by having his penis in another man's mouth, you then apologized and admitted you got that from an unBiblical source. Zakir Naik misquoted a verse from the passage of Gospel of John in the video that Rational posted. It's OK, we all make mistakes.

I don't know whether what Sam Shamoun writes when he is mistaken is from a willfull dishonesty or ignorance. Either way, it makes his arguments unreliable. I check out his site sometimes, and am very careful to cross-reference every claim that he makes.

Here is an example of Nabeel Qureshi's dishonesty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHu_WipSyUQ

The Trimurti doctrine teaches there are three gods who exist in one form. The Trinity doctrine teaches that one God exists as three persons.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Many others say Trinity is 3 in 1 also.

Three persons in one God, not three gods in one god.

Originally posted by TG12345

If it was a mistake it's OK. Like every other human being, we have made our share of mistakes. I was curious, that's all.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Yeah it was a mistake, sorry. I meant to say Shia view not version.

Thanks for clarifying. No problem, let's move on.

Originally posted by TG12345

Are we discussing a hadith or are we discussing tafsir? You didn't post a link to the source, can you please do that? I asked you this before, I am asking again.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

I did, but here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus'_death#Substitution_interpretation

Thanks. Other than Wikipedia, can you find a source for this?

Originally posted by TG12345

Just like you worship one God who you believe has 99+ different attributes. When you call on AlRahman and AlRaheem you are calling on one God, not two different Gods.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

You think 99 names for ONE person is similar to the concept THREE separate persons?

Do you describe Allah as a person?

I think 99 separate names for one God is similar to the concept of one God existing as three persons.

Originally posted by TG12345

Indeed many Muslims grossly misunderstand what others believe, and then attack them for believing something they don't.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Other Christians and Jews also attack Trinitarians as polytheists and Idol Worshippers, usually directed at Roman Catholics.

And there are Muslims who attack Hadith followers as innovators.

What's your point?

Originally posted by TG12345

Muhammad did not bring justice (or his version of it) to the world, he brought it to Arabia.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Jesus did not bring justice to the world, but you believe it to be his second coming. Muhammad also informed other Nations with letters and his Sahaba about the religion of Islam.

Jesus did not bring justice to the world in His first coming, but He will in His second... and both Muslims and Christians believe He will come again. Do you believe in the second coming of Muhammad?

Muhammad may have informed other nations about Islam, but there is no proof that they followed. Neither the Persians or Romans were won over by his letters. King Negus allegedly became a Muslim, but there is no proof that he ruled Ethiopia according to Islamic Law.

Muhammad's Sahaba were informed about the religion of Islam but Isaiah 42 states the messenger will not rest until he has established justice in the earth.

Muhammad clearly did not do this. He may have done so in Arabia, but not anywhere else during his lifespan.

Also Isaiah 42:1 states that the servant will bring justice to the nations.Behold my servant, whom I uphold,my chosen, in whom my soul delights;I have put my Spirit upon him;he will bring forth justice to the nations.

What nation other than Arabia did Muhammad bring "justice" to?

The word used for nations... lag·gō·w·yim... can also mean "Gentiles".http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/laggoyim_1471.htm

If this were the case, this would also not be true of Muhammad, since he judged the Jews as well several times according to the hadiths. He judged people regardless if they were Jewish or Gentile, unlike the prophet in Isaiah 42 who is identified as coming to judge "the Gentiles"... if that is the translation you want to use.

Regardless if whether the word in Isaiah 42:1 is "nations" or "Gentiles", it does not describe what Muhammad did as a prophet.

Isaiah 42 is not a reference to him.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Another link I had supporting Muhammad in Isaiah 42 is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtEpM9BqvQI

The video argues that the word "etmak" should actually be "ahmad" and that it has been tampered with. This is the author's view but I see no evidence that this is the case.

Even if the word is indeed "ahmad" it couldn't be true of Muhammad since he died long before justice is established in the earth and he did not bring justice to the nations... only one nation. He also did not bring justice to Gentiles, he brought justice (or his understanding of it) to both non-Jews and Jews alike.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Also here is a Jewish answer to any prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68iabTXx1wY

I know that Jews do not believe Jesus is prophesied in Isaiah. They believe the prophecy is about Israel, if I am not mistaken.

This does not however help back your assertion that Isaiah 42 is about Muhammad.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Also a Jewish opinion on Islam:
http://www.thesanhedrin.org/en/index.php?title=Hachrazah_5769_Kislev_15b

Thanks for sharing. The link says that like Judaism, Islam is a monotheistic religion and that Jews and Muslims can be inspired to do good deeds when seeing the other doing so. As a Christian I also believe in this.

The link does not say anything about Muhammad being prophesied in Isaiah 42.

I don't see how either the 2nd or 3rd link is relevant to our discussion on Isaiah 42, unless you brought them up to show some interesting things outside of our debate, which is cool.

Originally posted by TG12345

So as to where Muhammad is described in the Injil, there is still no answer to that.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

I said that it would be in the context of speaking to the Jews not his disciples but I would have to know Aramaic, Arabic or Koine Greek to read those Gospels as the English translations could be wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean here by stating the things Jesus said in the Injil would be in the context of speaking to the Jews not His disciples.

www.bible.cc has Greek and Hebrew translations of the words in each passage if you want to check them out.

Originally posted by TG12345

I do not know Shamoun, Wood and Qureshi so I cannot comment too much on them. I have read some of Shamoun's articles, he at times does misquote the Quran and hadiths. Whether this is intentional on his part or mistakes I don't know.

You mistakenly said that Timothy was circumcised by having his penis in another man's mouth, you then apologized and admitted you got that from an unBiblical source. Zakir Naik misquoted a verse from the passage of Gospel of John in the video that Rational posted. It's OK, we all make mistakes.

I don't know whether what Sam Shamoun writes when he is mistaken is from a willfull dishonesty or ignorance. Either way, it makes his arguments unreliable. I check out his site sometimes, and am very careful to cross-reference every claim that he makes.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Here is an example of Nabeel Qureshi's dishonesty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHu_WipSyUQ

Thanks for sharing. He doesn't sound any better than the dishonest Zakir Naik.

I do not consider Allah as a person(as in human) but an entity similar to how you consider the Heavenly Father and Holy Spirit as persons but not human.

You say to me to reject hadith is to reject the Quran but not once did I say that I completely reject the hadith. What's also funny is that in our past conversations you try get me to believe a hadith and when I do you try to disprove that hadith?

For the sake of argument, consider Muhammad(SAW) as the Servant in Isaiah 42. Not only that but consider the servant(s) as Muhammad(SAW) and the religion of Islam(which Jesus will follow in his second coming). And then attribute Isaiah 42 to during and after Muhammad's life.

Try to imagine it from the other side of the argument, just consider Muhammad(SAW) as a Prophet. I would sometimes imagine without taking Quran and Muhammad into consideration(May Allah forgive me) that Jesus did die on the cross for our sins and that would not convince me. But I would never believe in the Trinity as there is not enough evidence to imagine that. Although Satan would try to force the idea into my head when I wake up before Fajr, but he would also try to force idolatry such as the Moabite "god" Chemosh, Praise Allah that I would fight off these thoughts.
http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/4101
http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/4133

We cannot convince each other but we must take the information and try to convince ourselves. Life is really simple but men insist on making things complicated.

I do not consider Allah as a person(as in human) but an entity similar to how you consider the Heavenly Father and Holy Spirit as persons but not human.

Fair enough. I believe Allah is God, and He reveals Himself to humanity as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

You say to me to reject hadith is to reject the Quran but not once did I say that I completely reject the hadith. What's also funny is that in our past conversations you try get me to believe a hadith and when I do you try to disprove that hadith?

I apologize to you, 786SalaamKhan. I have to say that I am unclear about what you believe and do not believe about the hadiths, and I am afraid I have misinterpreted your words at times.

If you are ok with it, I would like to ask you some questions.

1) Do you believe that the things Muhammad said as a prophet that are recorded in sahih hadiths... about God, humanity, the prophets of God, how Muslims are to live, creation... were given to him by God or are they the words of a human being who spoke from his own knowledge and whose words can be either true or false?

2) As a Muslim, are you allowed to believe some of the things Muhammad said in the sahih hadiths and acknowledge them to be true and allowed to disbelieve other things he said and state they are false?

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

For the sake of argument, consider Muhammad(SAW) as the Servant in Isaiah 42. Not only that but consider the servant(s) as Muhammad(SAW) and the religion of Islam(which Jesus will follow in his second coming). And then attribute Isaiah 42 to during and after Muhammad's life.

For the sake of argument (and only for that reason), I can assume Muhammad was a prophet of God and that he spread God's justice.

I cannot assume he is the Servant in Isaiah 42, because to do this would require either changing what Isaiah 42 says or adding to what Islam teaches.

To the best of my knowledge, Islam does not teach that Muhammad established justice in the earth. He established Islam in Arabia, he did not establish it in either the Persian or Byzantine Empire. Although he preached to the rulers of both powers, they rejected his teaching. Muhammad died before Islam was established in Persia, and long before that was the case on the Byzantine Empire.

The Servant in Isaiah 42 is prophesied to establish justice in the earth.

This is something that Jesus will do in His second coming.

Even Muhammad taught this!

(1) Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind
justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and
there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims). Money
will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single
prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and
whatever is in it." Abu Huraira added "If you wish, you can recite
(this verse of the Holy Book): -- 'And there is none Of the people of
the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (i.e jesus
as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) Before his death. And on the
Day of Judgment He will be a witness Against them." (4.159) (See Fateh
Al Bari, Page 302 Vol 7)
(Book #55, Hadith #657)

The Servant in Isaiah 42 will not grow faint or be discouraged until he has established justice in the earth. Muhammad did not establish justice in the earth. Jesus will.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Try to imagine it from the other side of the argument, just consider Muhammad(SAW) as a Prophet. I would sometimes imagine without taking Quran and Muhammad into consideration(May Allah forgive me) that Jesus did die on the cross for our sins and that would not convince me. But I would never believe in the Trinity as there is not enough evidence to imagine that.

Why would you not believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins?

In regards to the Trinity, the Bible makes clear that Jesus is God, that the Father is God and that the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus then states that we are to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Although Satan would try to force the idea into my head when I wake up before Fajr, but he would also try to force idolatry such as the Moabite "god" Chemosh, Praise Allah that I would fight off these thoughts.

Unlike Chemosh, Jesus is God.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/4101

I don't think the Trinity is any more "unacceptable to the mind" than the idea that God would send 124,000 prophets and all of theirs except one's message would be changed or added to or lost.

As we both know, for many people, the very idea of God existing at all is unacceptable!

I do not know God is capable of being three persons while simultaneously being one. Do you know how He is capable of knowing everything, even our thoughts? Or do you just accept He is capable of anything, even if His greatness is too amazing for our human minds to comprehend?

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

http://knowingallah.com/index.php/en/articles/article/4133

I haven't explored the other religions listed, although I have already demonstrated that the Hindu Trimurti (belief in three gods being one) is not like the Trinity (belief in one God who exists as three persons).

Even if other religions believed in a pagan god existing as three persons (which I still have to see evidence of) it does not show "the pagan roots" of Christianity anymore than the fact that the pagan Greeks believed in an all-powerful deity named Zeus shows "the pagan roots" of Islam because like the pagan Greeks, Muslims also believe there is an Almighty God.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

We cannot convince each other but we must take the information and try to convince ourselves.

Agreed. And the information does not point to Islam being true. No offense intended.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

Life is really simple but men insist on making things complicated.

I think like can be complicated if we follow our own thoughts and desires and values. It is more simple when we turn to God.

Originally posted by 786SalamKhan

May Allah Guide us all and grant us Jannah through his mercy only.

InshAllah.

Blessed be His Name. It is by His grace that we have any chance of salvation.

PS I will be probably again taking a few days break, perhaps a week, from the forum so when you post your response it will take me a while to respond but inshAllah I will.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.